Sean Haugh: Reformed Anarchist?

Both of these quotes can be found in this gem of an article.

- "You can take the most hardcore Libertarian position on any issue and get the majority of people to agree with you, because you make them feel they always agreed with you. This is what successful politicians do."

- "We should recognize that many voters like us precisely because we *are* radical..."

I only point these out because I wonder if Sean truly says what he means by proclaiming he's no longer an anarchist. Sean I guess was highly offended by one of my prior blog entries. Read all the comments or pick up from my latest in that thread which I'll post here.

Rob, I have no longer have any hope of explaining anything to you, but I will respond for the benefit of anyone else reading.

How kind of you, but there's really nothing else to explain. You got called out on your contradictions and you're trying to justify it somehow now.

My reference to Grey and Brandon was in direct response to your accusation, Or maybe you forgot what you just said. There's medication for that, y'know.

No, I didn’t forget what I said Sean. I did ASSUME something by saying, "I only need to point to the types of candidates that you would back, vs. the Jim Grey's & Ben Brandon's who aren't wackos and ran on a moderate Libertarian platform." The fact that you told me you supported their campaigns, doesnt change anything though. Call me wrong for assuming that (for good reasons) in the first place, but now we have an even bigger problem for you to rectify Sean. Follow this reasoning everyone...

1. Sean said he backed candidates such as Grey and Brandon, who are MODERATE LP'ers.

2. You write an article titled "The Platform is not a Problem" and call those trying to clean up the unrealistic/extreme parts of the platform, "whiners".

3. Conclusion: So are you calling Jim Grey and Ben Brandon whiners too Sean? Because I certainly believe they wouldn’t have the knee-jerk reaction you had writing that article, if they were confronted by people wanting to make the platform truly representative of its constituency.

You keep calling me an anarchist. Not that I mind so much, but I'm not one and I don't see where you got that idea except from your own prejudice. It certainly didn't come from anything I said.

I know you don’t mind Sean, because I’m sure you find positive associations with that term. I don’t. You want to know where I got that idea, aside from the harsh tone in your own article? Here’s where I got that idea from Sean…, from your own comment on Tim West’s blog.

I used to be an anarchist, but I don’t think I could call myself one anymore since I am so busy trying to get people elected and change public policy. We would have to eliminate scarcity to truly consider it. I label my utopian view Star Trek Socialism. But politics doesn’t allow me much room for utopian philosophical discourse. In my article I devote a paragraph to my rules for incrementalism, not much different really from yours or Carl’s.

You admit you used to be an anarchist. Well, now that you’re reformed I suppose, why and how more importantly did you make that transition? What changes of opinion have you had? I personally doubt that you have, partially because of your demeaning article/tone to reformers. You state above that you’re not one anymore, or as you say “I don’t think I could call myself one anymore since I am so busy trying to get people elected and change public policy.” So is this the only reason? You talk about incrementalism, and I’m all for that. But incrementalism to what ends is the real question.

The truth is that while I don't want to water down the platform, I would like to see it be more inviting to self-described moderates. (I said as much in the original article.)

Taking out the extreme parts of the platform isn’t “watering down” anything. It’s getting done what needs to be done, so opponents can’t use our own platform to beat the hell out of our candidates. All this fear of the LP falling into a slippery slope should it take more moderate stances is bullcrap. My definition of what a libertarian is, is different from yours. Accept it and move on.

Another truth is that I love all my Libertarian candidates and consider anyone who wants more Liberty rather than less to be my friend and ally. Unless of course they begin the relationship with a stupid bigoted hate filled screed like you did with me. Let's go back to that for a moment. Not only is making fun of someone's appearance as a first line of argument about the surest sign of being a hate-filled moron, but in this case it shows just how astoundingly hypocritical you are. That headshot was professionally made by my local newspaper, and that's what you chose to attack. I would think that if you truly beleived the LP should be presentable, you'd recognize the attempt.

This is really what it all boils down to. You thought I was attacking you personally, but nothing could be further from the truth. All I did was say that you looked like the guy from Office Space, nothing more. How you perceived that as being hate-filled is beyond me. That’s what immediately popped into my head when I went over to Libertyforall.net and saw your article/picture. I never said anything bad about your appearance, so stop making it out to be a personal attack. Honestly, as a new blogger, all I was doing was trying to be a little creative and entertain whatever readers might come this way.

You say about your friends, "they love the ideas, UNTIL you start mentioning the more radical positions the LP seems to support." Well, why the hell would you do that?? I tell people if you want more Liberty rather than less, then you belong in the Libertarian Party. If they discover a plank that gives them pause, I tell them it's not a litmus test issue and introduce them to someone already in the party who agrees with them. Apparently you're the only one who is trying to shove this down people's throats here.

I’m honest about all of what the Libertarian Party stands for and what its platform says, should someone ask me. Why wouldn’t I be? It should be clear why I want to root out what I see as the bad parts of the platform. I don’t believe in them, and I don’t feel I should have to defend them. You’re on the money when you say, “I tell people if you want more Liberty rather than less, then you belong in the Libertarian Party.” The definition of what it means to be a libertarian, and/or a member of the party, should be more broad and open as in your example. This is all I and others want to see…an inclusion of all lovers of liberty, and a less condescending tone taken when confronted with those who challenge existing libertarian dogma.

Actually, I cahnged my mind. Please don't play again. Just give up.

Sorry, no can do.